“reassessment proceedings”

Kailash Shrichand Makhija, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

availed accommodation entries from various dealers who are said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from various parties as mentioned in the Assessment Order. In response assessee vide

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

facts of the case confirming the addition of 100% creditors totaling to Rs. 19.85 crores as unproved creditors. 2.0 Ground No. 2: Reassessment proceedings not based on any new material facts On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... facts of the case failed to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were not based on any new material facts. 3.0 Ground No.3: Appellant has discharged the burden & proved qenuiness. Revenue has not given any evidence to discharge the burden On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

facts of the case confirming the addition of 100% creditors totaling to Rs. 19.85 crores as unproved creditors. 2.0 Ground No. 2: Reassessment proceedings not based on any new material facts On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred ... facts of the case failed to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were not based on any new material facts. 3.0 Ground No.3: Appellant has discharged the burden & proved qenuiness. Revenue has not given any evidence to discharge the burden On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Abhishek Millennium Contracts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

declaring total income of INR 6,78,44,123/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated based upon the information received from Sales Tax (VAT) Department, State of Maharashtra under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed assessment under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Abhishek Millennium Contracts Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Year 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of INR 87,84,956/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated based upon the information received from Sales Tax (VAT) Department, State of Maharashtra under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer

Kay Foam Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the order passed by PCIT setting aside the above order dated 31.12.2017 passed in reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act as being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue invoking provisions of Explanation ... Section 263 of the Act. The Appellant herein had also challenged the above order, dated 31.12.2017, passed in reassessment proceedings in appeal before CIT(A). ITA. No. 598/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the Development Agreement

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

rely upon Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 to contend that the CIT(A) ought to have held that reassessment proceedings under Section. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are without jurisdiction, bad in law and consequential order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated ... under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and permitted the Assessee to support the order of CIT(A) on the ground of invalidity of reassessment proceedings. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid decision read as under: “3. With the assistance of …… The Id Counsel for the assessee pointed out that

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Fincorp Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Year: 2008-09 INR 3,72,59,028/- which was claimed by the Assessee in the return of income. 6. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that (a) the Assessee was a wholly and subsidiary of L&T Finance Holding Ltd. which intern was a subsidiary

DCIT C.C. 3(4) Central .RG, Mumbai vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit,Cc-3(4) Vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar Room No. 1915, Air India D-1214, Hillside Building Building, Nariman Point, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacpt0654P Revenue .. Assessee

assessment year 2013-14. Accordingly, a notie u/s 148 of the Act on 20.12.2016 was issued to the assessee. During the course of reassessment proceedings the assessee had made submission that he had given loan of Rs.1,65,00,000/- and his wife Nirja Thakkar had given loan of Rs.50

Vimla Babulal Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal..……..….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Narayan Plaza, 135, Ram Mandir Road, Oshiwara, Nr. Singh Industrial Estate, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104. [Pan: Adopk3702A] Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-17………………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

while reopening. The addition of the alleged commission expense and purchase price of shares was not the/ one or the subject matter(s) of reassessment proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 hence review of the case once again is highly unjustified and is liable to be rejected

Vimla Babulal Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal..……..….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Narayan Plaza, 135, Ram Mandir Road, Oshiwara, Nr. Singh Industrial Estate, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104. [Pan: Adopk3702A] Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-17………………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

while reopening. The addition of the alleged commission expense and purchase price of shares was not the/ one or the subject matter(s) of reassessment proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 hence review of the case once again is highly unjustified and is liable to be rejected

Vimla Babulal Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. Nos.1184,1185&1186/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vimla Babulal Khandelwal..……..….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Narayan Plaza, 135, Ram Mandir Road, Oshiwara, Nr. Singh Industrial Estate, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104. [Pan: Adopk3702A] Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-17………………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

while reopening. The addition of the alleged commission expense and purchase price of shares was not the/ one or the subject matter(s) of reassessment proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 hence review of the case once again is highly unjustified and is liable to be rejected

DCIT Circle- 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kohinoor Planet Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as additions made by the AO on merits. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. However, on merits, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee while deleting the addition of INR 48,31,22,083/- made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

given at pg.29 para 6.1 of Ld. CIT(A)'s order. 9.3 Assessment is based on averments made by PEC Ltd in its own reassessment proceedings before Delhi Officer unsupported by any corroborative evidence or even a sworn statement of any officer of PEC ,it is not permissible to base ... Justice M.B. Shah Commission. Considering the vide range irregularities in the case of PEC, it was necessary to verify the supporting supplier assessments, the reassessment proceedings were initiated. The Ld CIT(A) considered the objections raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and accordingly allowed the same. However

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

given at pg.29 para 6.1 of Ld. CIT(A)'s order. 9.3 Assessment is based on averments made by PEC Ltd in its own reassessment proceedings before Delhi Officer unsupported by any corroborative evidence or even a sworn statement of any officer of PEC ,it is not permissible to base ... Justice M.B. Shah Commission. Considering the vide range irregularities in the case of PEC, it was necessary to verify the supporting supplier assessments, the reassessment proceedings were initiated. The Ld CIT(A) considered the objections raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and accordingly allowed the same. However

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

given at pg.29 para 6.1 of Ld. CIT(A)'s order. 9.3 Assessment is based on averments made by PEC Ltd in its own reassessment proceedings before Delhi Officer unsupported by any corroborative evidence or even a sworn statement of any officer of PEC ,it is not permissible to base ... Justice M.B. Shah Commission. Considering the vide range irregularities in the case of PEC, it was necessary to verify the supporting supplier assessments, the reassessment proceedings were initiated. The Ld CIT(A) considered the objections raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and accordingly allowed the same. However

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Income Tax (Appeals)– 26, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12. As in the appeal filed by the assessee, validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is also challenged, same is dealt first in this order. ITA no.3415/Mum./2019 Assessee’s Appeal ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that reassessment proceedings under section 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act are validly initiated by taking satisfaction of JCIT as per the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act when such satisfaction

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment proceedings us 147 of the Act is without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged us 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings itself ... Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned A has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction